Re: [40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool
Wow, wall of text!
I appreciate you linking those organofcorti articles, I believe I had a look at those back when I was doing my research. Makes a lot more sense 5 months later!
So what I understand is this:
Earlier this year, Slushpool experienced a period of exceptionally bad luck. This was later found to be a product of block withholding. Intentional? Accidental? Did Slush for some reason collude with the miner (alleged to be Genesis Mining)? These questions sadly remain unanswered.
I am not against people throwing in their opinions, but I refuse to watch a thread fill up with FUD and misinformation simply because people (who largely were entirely unaffected by this incident) seem to take a personal issue with Slush not releasing information that may or may not exist. So let's make some scenarios.
A: Slush colluded with the miner and personally covered up any tracks that could lead to the miner for the purpose of
B: The miner intentionally withheld blocks as a form of attack against Slushpool and it's users while making themselves difficult to track.
C: The miner's software was improperly set-up, and this somehow resulted in valid blocks not being submitted.
If A is true, then we need a mob. A big one. Torches, pitchforks, biblethumping. The whole nine yards. As a user I will be front of the pack. The evidence submitted so far to prove A is true is included below:
[evidence]
[/evidence]
If B is true, and Slush holds irrefutable evidence this was the case, as well as this person's information, it should be released to the public to prevent further withholding attacks. Anyone who understands mining knows this is futile because their identity can be easily obfusticated and thusly there is NO POINT releasing this information outside of exactly what he did provide, which was informing people that it happened and making improvements to minimize future vulnerability.
[Most likely scenario]
If B is true and Slush does NOT hold irrefutable evidence, I stand by them 100% for not releasing information that amounts to FUD.
[/Most likely scenario]
If C is true the whole argument is pointless, Slush is under no obligation to release user information to ANYONE without concrete proof that they INTEND TO cause harm to another pool.
I stand by that 100%, no DOX without PROOF, I would make it a very personal issue if I screwed myself and my fellow users out of BTC due to a setup error and had a pool operator publicly release ANY of my information.
You say you've directly accused Genesis of being the bad actor, and doing so purposefully, without any evidence?
There's a way to describe that.
It's called LIBEL and DEFAMATION, a situation Slush clearly steered well away from no matter what the facts. Good move.
Regards,
Erumara
I appreciate you linking those organofcorti articles, I believe I had a look at those back when I was doing my research. Makes a lot more sense 5 months later!
So what I understand is this:
Earlier this year, Slushpool experienced a period of exceptionally bad luck. This was later found to be a product of block withholding. Intentional? Accidental? Did Slush for some reason collude with the miner (alleged to be Genesis Mining)? These questions sadly remain unanswered.
I am not against people throwing in their opinions, but I refuse to watch a thread fill up with FUD and misinformation simply because people (who largely were entirely unaffected by this incident) seem to take a personal issue with Slush not releasing information that may or may not exist. So let's make some scenarios.
A: Slush colluded with the miner and personally covered up any tracks that could lead to the miner for the purpose of
B: The miner intentionally withheld blocks as a form of attack against Slushpool and it's users while making themselves difficult to track.
C: The miner's software was improperly set-up, and this somehow resulted in valid blocks not being submitted.
If A is true, then we need a mob. A big one. Torches, pitchforks, biblethumping. The whole nine yards. As a user I will be front of the pack. The evidence submitted so far to prove A is true is included below:
[evidence]
[/evidence]
If B is true, and Slush holds irrefutable evidence this was the case, as well as this person's information, it should be released to the public to prevent further withholding attacks. Anyone who understands mining knows this is futile because their identity can be easily obfusticated and thusly there is NO POINT releasing this information outside of exactly what he did provide, which was informing people that it happened and making improvements to minimize future vulnerability.
[Most likely scenario]
If B is true and Slush does NOT hold irrefutable evidence, I stand by them 100% for not releasing information that amounts to FUD.
[/Most likely scenario]
If C is true the whole argument is pointless, Slush is under no obligation to release user information to ANYONE without concrete proof that they INTEND TO cause harm to another pool.
I stand by that 100%, no DOX without PROOF, I would make it a very personal issue if I screwed myself and my fellow users out of BTC due to a setup error and had a pool operator publicly release ANY of my information.
You say you've directly accused Genesis of being the bad actor, and doing so purposefully, without any evidence?
There's a way to describe that.
It's called LIBEL and DEFAMATION, a situation Slush clearly steered well away from no matter what the facts. Good move.
Regards,
Erumara